DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 283 124 CS 008 821

AUTHOR Rowe, Deborah WellsTITLE Literacy Learning as an Intertextual Process.PUB DATE Dec 86NOTE 28p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

National Reading Conference (36th, Austin, TX,December 2-6, 1986). Figures 1 and 2 contain smallprint.

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) --Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Behavior Patterns; Class Activities; Classroom

Environment; Cognitive Development; Ethnography;Learning Activities; *Learning Processes; *PeerRelationship; *Prereading Experience; PreschoolEducation; Reading Research; Schemata (Cognition);Self Directed Groups

IDENTIFIERS *Communication Behavior; Communication Patterns;*Emergent Literacy; Text Factors

ABSTRACTFocusing on the role of intertextuality as young

children learn to communicate through writing, art, and music duringthe course of usual classroom activities, an ethnographic studyinvestigated: (1) how children's understanding and use of writtenlanguage, music, and graphic/constructive art are embedded in thesocial worlds of their classroom; and (2) what socio-psychologicalstrztegies young children use to explore the potentials of theseforms of communication. Subjects, 21 three- and four-year-olds in adaycare program at Indiana University, were observed over eightmonths as they participated in two self-selected activity periodsduring which they were allowed to direct their own literacy learning.Teachers provided literacy demonstrations by composing their ownwritten, artistic, or musical texts. Observations during this periodindicated two general types of intertextual connections that wereimportant in the literacy learning setting. The first type occurredwhen children linked their existing knowledge about literacy to thedemonstrations provided by other authors. The process of mutualintertextualizing which occurred through conversation anddemonstration seemed to lead to the formation of shared meaningsabout literacy and allowed members of the same authoring community touse literacy to communicate with others. The second type ofintertextual connection reflected the mediated nature of literacylearning. Children seemed to interpret their experiences by flexiblylinking their current observations to aspects of their pastexperiences by creating context-specific hypotheses about literacy.Several features of the classroom served to support this kind oflearning. (Seventeen references are included.) (JD)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

1

CC,

DEBORAH WELLS ROWEPeabody Col lege,

Vanderbilt University

LITERACY LEARNING AS AN INTERTEXTUAL PROCE3S

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational ResearCh and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

-1V14c115 doCurnenl has been reproduced asr eived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

C MinOr changes have been made to improvereprOduCtion quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-rnent do nOt necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy.

Running Head: Literacy Learning

Paper presenteci at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference inAustin, TX December 2-6, 1926

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Deborah Wells Rowe

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

LITERACY LEARNING AS AN INTERTEXTUAL PROCESS

Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) have defined intertextuality as the'ways in which the production and reception of a given text depends upon theparticipants' knowledge of other texts" (p. 182). When text is definedbroadly as any unified chunk of meaning, the process of constructingintertextual ties can be seen more generally as a metaphor for learning orcognition. Rosen (1984) has suggested that the creation of a narrative a

text-- involves the establishment of arbitrary boundaries in a continuous

stream of experience and that it is by constructing a framework forinterpreting experience that we are able to give it meaning. Because this

interpretive framework is itself maoe of texts formed on other occasions,text construction is always an intertextuel process. Learners can makesense of new texts only by making connections to their existing ones. Fromthis perspective, the process of constructing understandable 'stories' fromthe flow of daily events is a primary cognitive act (Hardy, 1978). And thisact necessarily involves tying evolving texts to existing ones, as well asmaking new connections between existing texts. Seen in this way,

intertextual tying is an integral part of the interpretation of linguistic texts,and more generally a way of making sense of the world.

But how does this "connectionmaiOng" process occur, and what roledoes it play in the literacy learning of young children? These are questionswhich emerged as en important focus of the ethnographic study of literacylearning reported in this paper. Generally, the purpose of this study was toexplore how young children learn about literacy in the course of their usualclassroom activities. More specifically, I proposed two broad researchquestions which allowed me to take both an individual and a social perspectiveon this learning:

3

Literacy Learning2

1. How are children's understandings and use of writtenlanguage, music, and graphic/constructive art embedded in thesocial worlds of their classroom?2. How do young children explore the potentials of thesecommunication systems? More specifically, what sociopsychological strategies do they use?

These initial research questions were also focused broadly enough to allowme to observe children's attempts to simultaneously learn to communicateusing a number of 'alternate literacies (Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984)-- a research decision based on a semiotic perspective on communicationwhich suggests that literacy involves the use of multiple sign systems andthat a similar process of signification underlies communication regardless ofthe sign system involved.

As Hymes (1978) has suggested it is the essence of the ethnographic

method that initial research questions are refined and developed through thedialectic which occurs as the ethnographer reflects on the results of ongoingdata analysis and plans subsequent phases of data collection. Early in thisstudy, several patterns related to the ways in which my 3 and 4yearoldinformants linked their texts to those of others and to their own past textsemerged as an important focus of the study. My observations of thesechildren over an 8 month period suggested that the construction ofintertextual ties had both social and individual features, and that

intertextuality was central to learning. The purposes of this paper are todescribe the patterns of intertextual tying I observed as I watched this groupof 21 children learning to communicate through writing, art, and music andto present the theoretical hypotheses which I generated to describe the roleof intertextuality in the literacy learning process.

4

Literacy Learning3

flETtIOPSett Ina and Paticipants

The setting for this research was a daycare program which served the3- and 4-year-old children of faculty and staff at Indiana University. Of the13 boys and 8 girls who participated in the research, 15 had parents whowere faculty or graduate students, and 6 had parents who were employed instaff positions at the University or elsewhere in the community. InSeptember, 13 of the children were 3-year-olds, while 8 had already passedtheir fourth birthday.

This setting was chosen specifically because the director and teachershad developed a curriculum which supported young children's literacylearning by encouraging them to engage in literacy activities for functionalpurposes, and by valuing their communicative efforts regardless of theconventionality of the resulting product. Each day during two self-selectedactivity periods, youngsters were allowed to direct their own literacylearning by chosing how, when, and why they would participate in literacyactivities. At these times children could choose to work at the writing table,the art table, the book area, the piano, or at other centers such as the blockarea or housekeeping corner. Teachers provided literacy demonstrations byauthoring their own written, artistic, or musical texts at these centers.They also acted as audience for the texts children were producing. In thisway, children were encouraged to learn about literacy by using it, andliteracy instruction was embedded in informal discussions about in-processauthoring activities.

5

Literacy Learning 4

Data Collection Procedures

Insert Figure 1 about here.

As seen in Figure 1, this research proceeded through four phases in

which the focus of data collection, the amount of time spent in the

classroom, and the data collection techniques varied. In the first phase of

the research I entered the classroom and focused on becoming familiar with

the setting and on negotiating my role with the children and teachers. My

major data collection technique during this period was

participant/observation. As my participatory role in the classroom

developed, the children came to view me as an assistant teacher. I talked

and worked with them throughout their day in much the same way as their

classroom teachers, with three exceptions: (1) I only rarely directed group

activities, (2) I spent the majority of my time observing and participating in

literacy activities, and (3) I consistently used a variety of techniques to

record classroom interactions.

As seen in Figure 1, starting in the second month of the study I began

to use several new techniques to record classroom interactions. These

included fieldnotes in the setting, audiotape, photography, and informal

interviews with the children about their literacy activities. I also began to

provide the classroom teachers with copies of my expanded fieldnotes and the

artifacts I had collected. Through informal conversations and indefinite

triangulation sessions (Cicourel, 1975; Denzin, 1978) they shared their

perspectives on my observations as well as discussing their own observations

of children's literacy learning. Though I collected data during all parts ofthe school day, the most intensive periods of observation involved children's

selfselected activities at the writing table, the art table, and the piano. For

Literacy Learning 5

the next three months I looked for patterns in children's literacy activitiesand developed tentative hypotheses about their learning.

in the third phase of the study I specifically focused on collectingdata which would help to refine these hypotheses. Theoretical sarnpling.wasused to focus my observations during this period, and videotape was used torecord these literacy events. The final phase of data collection occurred asI gradually lessened my participation in the classroom. Though the major

focus of my research activity shifted to data analysis during this period, Iused my classroom observations to further refine and test my hypothesesabout literacy learning.

Data Analysis Procedures

Data analysis was ongoing throughout the research using the constant

comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I reviewed and coded the data

weekly in search of patterns leading to working hypotheses about literacylearning in this setting. In addition I wrote methodological and theoreticalnotes to document my research decisions and the hypotheses, so that thesteps leading to the theoretical propositions could be retraced. As

mentioned above, the field note data and developing hypotheses were

discussed frequently with the teachers to add the perspectives of otherclassroom participants. Regular discussions with a peer debriefer (Lincoln& Guba 1985) and with other colleagues outside the setting also added new

perspectives on methodological and theoretical issues.

During the period of Field Exit, and after withdrawing from the

classroom, data analysis continued with transcription and

microsociolinguistic analysis of the video tape data, as well as withadditional analyses of the field notes and artifacts to refine hypotheses about

literacy learning. The video tapes were also used to further explore thenature of the interpretive work individual children engaged in during these

Literacy Learning6

events. Microanalysis of the social interaction in selected literacy eventswas aimed at refining hypotheses related to the role of social Interaction inliteracy learning. In addition I tracked each child's literacy learning throughthe data to look for patterns in individual children's learning over the 8months covered by the study. After completing a first draft of the researchreport, a chc:a (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was conducted by asking theclassroom tchers to respond to the accounts of events and theinterpretations presented in the draft. Their comments were used to extendand clarify some points in final versions of the report. (For a more detaileddescription of both Data Collection Procedures and Data Analysis Proceduressee Author, 1986).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

My observations of the literacy 'learning of this group of young childrensuggest that the construction of intertextual connections is a central part ofthis process. In this section I will discuss patterns in the data which supportthis contention and present my hypotheses about the role of intertextuality inliteracy learning. Presented first are examples illustrating how childrenlinked their texts to those of their classmates and teachers. This is followedby a discussion of the manner in which children constructed links betweentheir existing cognitive texts to form new literacy knowledge.

Intertextuality as a Social ProcessOne of the patterns most readily observed in the literacy activities of

children and teachers in this classroom was the extent to which they haddeveloped a shared register for literacy events (Halliday, 1975) . Thisshared knowledge included not only the content of their graphic and musiCaltexts, but also the processes or strategies they used, the structural aspectsof texts such as genre and conventions, and the purposes for which they usedliteracy in the classroom. Figure 2 provides examples of the content themes

Literacy Learning 7

and genre which were common across the entire group of children in this

class.

Insert Figure 2 about here.

By carefully examining the videtapes of events in which children made

obvious connections between t!-,eir texts and those of other participants I

formed the hypothesis that conversation and observation of the

demonstrations of others played an important role in the construction of this

type of intertextual link in this setting. Example 1 demonstrates how this

process occurred.Exarioie 1: Exclamation Points

February 25, 1986 (Videotapes 28,29)One of the nap teachers is in the hospital, so we

are making a 'Get Well' book for her. Kira watches as1 write my message, 'Dear Carol, We hope you get wellSOON ! ! ! (Artifact 1A).

As I write the last word, I read the letters outloud. "5 0 0 N, exclamation point, exclamation point,exclamation point. Because I want her to get wellsoon!' liana asks me what It says, and I read themessage again.

Kira struggles with the word and adds, 'And thisis extamation point. How come?'

"Put three cause it's big letters liana suggests.'Because I want her to get well really, really,

really soon. I want to emphasize that," I explain.As we work Kira brings up exclamation points

again, and we discuss them. Then Christina who isworking at the other side of the table joins theconversation. '1 have to put too much exclamationpoints," she says as she begins to write exclamationr. ints under her name. (Artifact 1B) (6) "Look,Debbie, look! I did just like you did!' She adds moreexclamation points.

Now Nana begins her picture for Carol. (Artifact1C) When she is finished she shows it to Susie, one ofthe classroom tea;hers. 'Carol's really gonna likethis one,' she says. 'There's a question mark ---"

'Exclamation point," Susie corrects."exclamation point because I really want her

to get well quicker!"

9

cs,s.

\ow, listi

CP

0sO

Artifact lA

Artifact 113

.........bag. :.;1;

,Iil..1,II01,

Artifact 1C

Literacy Learning 8

In this event as in most events at the piano, writing table, and art

table, conversation and demonstrations were linked as integral parts of a

literacy event which was familiar and functional for the participants. When

an unfamiliar idea was introduced in conversation or in another author's text,

the participants had access to many other sources of information about that

concept. For example, when I introduced exclamation points as part of my

'Get Well message for Carol, the children were able to explore the meaning

of that punctuation mark in relation to our shared feelings for Carol and our

shared understanding of the purpose for using literacy in this situation. They

were also able to observe how I used exclamation points in my text, to talk

about it, to ask questions about it, to try it out in their own texts, and then toshare their new ideas about exclamation points in conversation. In addition

as we talked about our texts, the children and I were carefully tracking themeanings formed by our auciience and adjusting our conversation so that so

shared meanings could be reached. Kira demonstrates this type of semantic

tracking (Halliday,1975) when she questions me about 'extamotion points."Literacy events in the classroom frequently provided interactive

demonstrations of the sort illustrated above. That is, they provided

opportunities for children to observe another author at work, to talk with

that person in order to expand and develop their ideas, to observe again, and

often to incorporete new idees into their own texts. Sometimes children used

the demonstrations of others as starting points for developing their own ideas

as Christina and Hana did in Example 1. At other times, children chose to use

available demonstrations conservatively; that is, they chose to stick as

closely to the demonstration as possible until they felt they understood it

fully. In either case, the construction of intertextual ties appeared to be

10

Literacy Learning9

supported by social interaction in which: (1) the activities of other authorswere familiar and understandable, (2) the participants workedcollaboratively to reach shared meanings through conversation, and (3)conversation and demonstration were linked to form interactivedemonstrations. It was by observing the demonstrations of others and byexchanging meanings in conversation that children formed shared meaningsabout literacy.

Intertextualitv as an Individual ProcessDespite the many intertextual connections that children and teachers

formed as they interacted with one another at the writing table, art table,and piano, there remained differences in their texts and in theirinterpretations of literacy events. The difference in the meaningsconstructed by individual participants was highlighted for me one day as Ginnyand I were working at the writing table. This event is described in Example 2below.

Example 2: We Both Have RingsFebruary 3, 1986 (Videotape 12)'February third," I say as I begin to write a note. 'Dear"D," Ginny guesses.

"Nope, this name starts with a K.'Katie,' she guesses.

'So does Katie, but there's another friend. She's very close to us,' Ihint.Kira!"Right!' I say.

Ginny lays her hand next to mine. 'Debbie! We've both got rings and mysister and Daddy and Melanie got a ring toorUrn hum. Everybody in your family has rings,' I reply continuing towrite. Then I stop to see that Ginny is still looking closely at her ring and mywedding rings. I lay my hand out beside hers. 'Yeah, we both do have ringson today, don't we!'And you know what! At my Daddy's house I have a family of rings at myDaddy's riouse. I have a ring.'

In this event, I found myself surprised that Ginny had introduced adiscussion of rings into the conversation. Just a moment before we had beentalking about my note and I assumed that she was attending to some aspect of

11

Literacy Learning10

that demonstration. Her next comments, however, indicated that she and 1were attending to entirely different aspects of the event. As contradictory asit may seem, differences in the texts or meanings formed by individualparticipants can also be explained by the notion of intertextuality. Becausethis event was puzzling to me, I mentioned it to one of the classroomteachers. She was able to solve the mystery by explaining that GinnY's fatherhad been remarried over the weekend and Ginny and her sister now had a newstepmother living at their house. In this case Ginny was interpreting eventsat the writing table by linking them to her recent experiences with rings.Though my rings had been available as signs during the preceding six months,it was only after her personal experiences had highlighted the relationshipbetween rings and families, that she interpreted that part of the meaningpotential of this literacy event. Quite literally, the cognitive texts to whichGinny and I linked our interpretations of the event affected what we saw andwhat we learned.This example illustrates that children were alsoconstructing ties to their existing cognitive texts in order to form hypothesesabout the meaning of literacy events. Because participants have differentstocks of experiences, the meanings they construct are only partiallyshared.

The pervasiveness of this second type of intertextual linkage washighlighted by my examination of individual children's learning over time.After tracking each of the 21 children through the data, I observed that ineach literacy event their behavior could be seen as connected to previousevents in which they had participated. Over time, children seemed to focustheir learning around a number of themes related to personally interestingcontent areas, processes, and social uses for literacy. Then in order tomeet the demands of specific communicative situations they flexibly

1 2

i Iconnected their existing knowledge in new ways to solve their communicativeproblems.

To illustrate this, in Figure 3 I have depicted two of the learningthemes Gibson pursued early in the study. The first group of events is linkedby his exploration of the conceptual theme of spiders, and the second by hisexploration of the process of folding paper and then cutting it. Thissequence of events began near the end of September when Gibson drew threepicture of spiders webs and spiders and gave them to Mary. He then droppedthis theme for almost two weeks. In the mean time, he began to explore theprocess of folding/cutting as well as other themes not depicted in Figure 3.On October 2, he observed Hana folding and cutting paper to make intricatesnowflakes. After realizing that he did not know how to make snowflakes, hewatched Hana carefully. His first attempt yielded an oval. After examining itclosely, he discarded it and watched Nana again. On his next attempt hemodified his hypothesis to include a second cut from the center of the fold.The result was an oval with a hole in the center, which we later dubbed a

'bagel." Later in the day as he was cutting bagels, Gibson accidentallyproduced a heart. Though he found this occurrence extremely exciting, he

found that he could not reproduce his discovery. Each time he tried, heproduced an oval with an indent at the top--a form he called an 'apple." Ashe explained this situation to one of his friends, can only 6:Ait one a day, Iguess. He left school without cutting another heart, despite numerousattempts. When selfselected activity time began on the following day Gibsonrushed over to the art table, folded some paper and cut a heart on the firsttry. In response to my question as to whether he had practiced at home, hereplied, 'No, but I thought about it.° With this success, Gibson cut manymore hearts of various sizes and shapes.

3

Literacy Learning 12

The following week brought a return to the spider theme. Gibson drew

several spider pictures, stapled them into a book, and read it to me and

several of his friends. Later in the afternoon, he composed a spider song to

accompany his book, and with his teachers, learned to play it on the piano.

Together they also recorded the tune on staff paper so that they could piay it

on another day. It was two days later when Gibson began a literacy event

which led him to construct a connection between his conceptual theme of

spiders and his processual knowledge about folding and cutting. This event is

described in Example 3 below.Exam le 3: S ider Record

Thursday, October 10, 1985 (Audio tape 4)Gibson has just completed the drawing

seen in Artifact 3A. He calls me over to therecord player.

"You know what?" he sayt,. °This is arecord and if you played, it it would go--.'He makes a face and puts it on the turn tableunder the needle.

'It would make spider sounds?* I ask.He nods.We talk about the kinds of sounds

spiders might make and the difficultiesassociated with records made of paper.

In the midst of this conversationGibson stops and looks at his picture withconcentration. "I'm gonna make this pictureinto a circle, he says and rushes away tothe art table. Some minutes later, Gibsoncomes to find me again. He holds up hisspider record with excitement. As seen inArtifact 36, he has folded the picture in halfand trimmed the edges to make a semicircle.Then he has cut a small piece from thecenter of the fold to make it look more like arecord.

Artifact 3A

Artifact 38

In this event Gibson attempted to produce a graphic text which

expressed a new concept he had constructed a spider record. He began

1 4

Literacy Learning13

the event by using his existing hypotheses about drawing spiders andsviderwebs. However, as he reflected on the result, he recognized thepossiblity of making an innovative connection between his conceptualknowledge about records (i.e., records are round and have a hole in themiddle) and his knowledge of cutting and folding processes (i.e., he can cut°bagels"). By constructing a new link between aspects of his existingknowledge, he was able to create a graphic message which more adequatelycommunicated the concept of a spider record. By flexibly transferring hispreviously constructed knowledge to an entirely new use in this event, Gibsondemonstrated the ability to generate new hypotheses in order to meet theneeds of specific communicative situations.

Example 3 also provides an illustration of the multidimensional natureof the intertextual linkages children formed as they engaged in literacyevents. The spider record event represents the intersection of conceptualthemes related to spiders and records and processual themes related todrawing spiders and cutting bagels. Also involved was Gibson's knowledge ofthe social uses of literacy (e.g., the creation of an arena for working out hisnewest ideas, and the initiation of positive social exchangeswith otherauthors). In order to create a spider record, Gibson flexibly connectedmutiple aspects of his past cognitive, interactive, and graphic texts.

The striking thing about this picture of Gibson's learning is that eachevent involves intertextual connections between several learning themes, butthere is no single simplifying structure which r::.redicts how these hypothesesshould be combined in the particular situation of use. For example, it isunlikely that Gibson has developed routinized schemata which tell him whatprocess he should use when he needs to portray a spider record. Thereseems to be no simple way to describe how existing texts should be combinedto fit literacy events of this type; that is, there is no sing/esimplifying rule

Literacy Learning14

which describes the content, processes, and purposes of literacy will relateto one another, nor is there one simplifying rule which describes how authorsshould combine knowledge domains, communication systems, or socialinteractions to achieve their goals as authors. Instad, events are multiplyand nonhierarchically interconnected. Though there are commonalitiesacross situations, children must combine parts of several hypotheses toguide their communication in specific literacy events.

Spiro's (Spiro, 1985; Spiro & Myers, 1984; Spiro, et. al, in press)recent work on learning in ill-structured situations provides some

suggestions about the nature of the intertextual connections learners make incomplex interactive contexts such as the classroom in which this researchwas conducted. He defines ill-structured domains as those where "there areno rules or principles of sufficient generality to cover most of the cases; . .

[where) hierarchical relations of dominance and subsumption are invertedfrom case to case; . . . [where] the same features assume different patternsof significance when placed in difference contexts. (1985, p. 6) In suchsituations learners have no prepackaged knowledge structures (schemata)already constructed to guide their thought and acVons. Instead they adapt

their knowledge flexibly to varying contexts. He theorizes that this ispossible because learners are able to encode information from cases in a

multiperspectival fashion, and then to flexibly see connections between theseevents to meet the neds of specific situations. Such encoding yields a highlyinterconnected knowledge base "in which fragments of knowledge are movedabout and assembled to fits the needs of a given context of application.Instead of prepackaged schemes, purpose-sensitive situational schemes areconstructed, thus allowing knowledge to be used in different ways on

different occasions, for different purposes. The emphasis is shifted fromprepackaged schemes to the ingredients for many potential schemes° (in

1 6

Literacy Learning 15

press, p. 6). It Is the assembling of parts of many different cases whichallow learners to make sense of the unique and oftchanging contexts wheretheir knowledge must be applied.

Spiro has not commented on whether he extends the possibility of .such

multifaceted processing to young children. However, I would argue thit thenatural interactive environment in which children are born possesses manyillstructured features. In order to learn about the world, and in order tolearn to speak children must be using flexible intertextual processes of thissort. As research on oral language learning has shown (DeVilliers &DeVilliers,1979; Lindfors, 1980), children are not using an inflexible set ofrules learned from adults, instead they are adaptively constructing ways ofmeaning- which fit particular situations. Their learning is marked by theability to make connections, and to link their past experiences in new ways.

Because speaking is a part of almost every interactive experience, they havemany opportunities to build rich networks of connections, and to test theirhypotheses in different contexts of situation. The result is a language systemwhich allows even young children to express their ideas in contextappropriate ways.

In a literate society, children have similar opportunities to constructliteracy knowledge at home before they enter school. In the classroomwhere this research was conducted, children also encountered complexliteracy processes in use and had many opportunities to form hypothesesabout hteracy. The patterns in children's literacy learning described abovehave led me to hypothesize that as children formed new communicative goalsthey flexibly combined various aspects of their existing knowledge, or linkedtheir existing knowledge to available demonstrations, to construct situationbased hypotheses which more adequately met their communicative goals. To

1 7

Literacy Learning16

accomplish this, they constructed intertextual connections among conceptsand processes which were related in complex and nonhierchical ways.

Two final patterns in the intertextuai connections made in this settingillustrate the multimodal nature of these linkages. As children engaged inactivities at the writing table, the art table, and the piano, they often madeuse of multiple communication systems to send their messages. They alsoexpressed knowledge gained through one communication system throughalternate modes of communication. An example of the integration of multiplecommunication systems comes from Gibson's construction of a spider bookcomplete with pictures, words, and music as described earlier in this paper.Children in this classroom frequently combined communication systems in aculturally appropriate manner to create multimodal messages. The secondpattern of multimodal linkages required children to express their knowledgein a new mode of communication. Justin illustrates this pattern in Example 4when he decides to write a book using elements from the movie, The Wizardof Oz, which he has seen the night before.

Example 4: The J and The Wizard of OzMonday, February 17, 1986 (Videotape 21)

Justin and Gene have been playing together andthey come to the writing table. Justin arrives singing,and takes a blank book from the holder.

"A books he says.'The title is. . ." He writes JUSTIN M on thecover.That's the title, end the title Justi Morgan.'(Artifact 4A)"Once there Ws . . ." He begins writing on the

first inside page, stops. "I didn't do that! He turnsback to the front cover and colors over the J in hisname, making it darker and thicker.

He turns back to page 1. 'Once there was a J'.(Artifact 4B)

OnCe there was a J walking through the [soundeffects/ woods. As he talks about the woods he fillspage 1 with squiggly lines. Cene leans over to watch.(10) 'And he met a . .

"A pig!' Cene suggests.

1 8

Artifact 4A

Artifact 45

Literacy Learning

He met 8 naughty bunny rabbit that acted like 8(4t * *). (Artifact 4C) With this last unintelligibleword he has turned the page and recorded it at the topof page 2. He continues at the bottom of the page.

°So he says R000008888, and SO the J ran offand here he is."

The new line of writing squiggles along quicklyas the J runs, and ends with the letter J at the bottomright corner. He stops to write over the J severaltimes. As he turns to page 3 he makes some moresound effects and begins the narrative again.(Artifact 4D)

"So he said, '/ wish / can be in Candy -- Kansaswhere I can see my best friends . . . Mane Johnson andDorothy Gale'. "

He begins writing with the J's dialogue. He usesup and down squiggles until he comes to the end of theline and then concludes his statement about 'DorothyGale" with a final vertical line.

"So heLpnvezy_ZIst and he got the WiZara of Oz. . .

He begins the new sentence on the right side ofpage 3, just below his last mark and continues counterclockwise, ending the line at the bottom right corner.While the J is running Justin's voice is loud and excitedand his writing is fast as well. When he begins towrite about the Wizard of Oz, his voice drops almost toa whisper. At the end of this line, he pauses as ifconsidering what should happen next. He turns to page4. (Artifact 4E)

"Picked him up in 8 12.2 balloon.*He draws the balloon as he talks, then turns to

page 5. (Artifact 4F)He went off NO squeeky sound effects] and he

went across and he went Sh000ml right to his puppy. .

As before the marks on the paper indicate themovement of the balloon. The high squeeks areaccompanied by little zig zags in the middle of thepage. When the balloon goess "across", he draws theline from left to right across the page. Then the linemoves to the top of the page in preparation for thefinal quick blast of movement which he accompanieswith sound effects, "Sh000mi" He adds the line aboutthe puppy as he is turning to page 6 (Artifact 40 andpauses in the middle of the work until he gets itpositioned so he can continue.

He finishes his thought, ". . dog. Now hebegins to use a high pitched voice as if the J is calling

1 9

17 ..L, Au. t .*

h.- C

Artifact 4C

Artifact 4D

Artifact 4E

Literacy Learning

for his dog. "Pup,oy dog! Puppy! Pup! Pup! Pupl" Herecords the search with wandering circular lines. Thisis the last blank page in the book, so he turns to theback side to finish his story.

'And he was happily every after with the (J).(Artifact 41-I)

C,

Artifact 4F

18

Artifact. 46 Artifact 4H

Viewing the movie, The Wizard ofOz, the night before this event and

dramatizing the story with his classmates earlier in the day gave Justin theidea of using elements of the story in his own book. Though he selected somecontent elements from the movie, he combined these elements with othersfrom his own experience and expressed them with different processes. Heselected characters (Dorothy Gale, a puppy dog), locations (the woods, Oz,

Kansas), a sequence of events (traveling through the forest to Oz, leaving ona balloon, losing Toto), and even some dialogue (e.g. wish I can be inKansas where I can see my best friends . . ") from the movie. Then from hisown experiences he added characters (the J, Hana, and a naughty bunnyrabbit) and a description of the balloon's movement which is more the like a

rocketship than the gentle ascent of a hot air balloon. In so doing he linked

the Wizard of 49z to his personal stock of stories--some from his own lifeexperiences and some from books, cartoons, and his imaginiation.

Beyond the intertextual connections related to content, Justin had

to make another type of connection in order to use these elements in

20

Literacy Learning19

his text. Because he chose an expressive medium (i.e. , art) which differedfrom that of the original text (i.e. , cinema), he had to form new hypothesesabout how this content could be expressed in a new medium--a process

termed transmediation (Siegel, 1984,1985). Since different sign systemscommunicate different aspects of meaning (Eisner, 1982), the need for:innovative hypotheses is often acute when forming intertextual ties betweenconcepts originally experienced through different modes of expression. Forexample, Justin had to construct graphic signs for the physical movements ofobjects and actors in the drama, and for the emotion expressed in theirvoices. He chose to portray the movement of the characters by the

movement of his pen and excitement by the the speed and size of his marks.These are aspects of experience not portrayed easily in graphic art usingsocietal conventions, so Justin had to invent his own hypotheses about how

these meanings could be expressed in drawing. Together, these observationssuggest that children are able to flexibly combine knowledge formed in avariety of modes of communication to meet the needs of communicative

situations.

CONCLUS I ONS

My observations of the literacy learning of this group of 3- and 4-year-olds over an 8 month period indicate that there were two general types ofintertextual connections which were important in literacy learning in thissetting. The first type of connection occurred when children linked theirexisting knowledge about literacy to the demonstrations provided by otherauthors. The process of mutual intertextualizing which occurred through

conversation and demonstration led to the formation of shared meaninasabout literacy and allowed members of the same authoring community to useliteracy to communicate with others. The second type of intertextual

connection reflected the mediated nature of literacy learning. Children

21

Literacy Learning 20

interpreted their experiences by flexibly linking their current observations toaspects of their past experiences creating context-specific hypotheses about

literacy. These linkages were observed to be multidimensional and

multirnodal.

In considering the implications of these observations for educationalpractice, it must first be noted that ethnographic research generateshypotheses ./tiich are grounded in the specific context in which the data iscollected. Therefore, the transferability (of generalizability) of the

conclusions I have drawn from this study must largely be left to those who

wish V apply them in other settings. (Additional details about the context inwhich this data was collected may be found in Author, 1986). However, sincethe children in this classroom have been shown to be flexible and activelearners, I would like to point out several characteristics of the curricularenvironment which appear to be especially supportive of this type of

learning. First, children were able to build shared meanings about literacybecause they were encouraged to make use of the demonstrations provided bytheir peers and teachers, and because they had many opportunities to talkabout these demonstrations in the context of activities which were functionaland understandable. Informal interaction between authors played an

important role in literacy learning in this classroom. Second, the teachers'expectation and acceptance of varied responses to literacy events supportedchildren's learning. By planning for open-ended literacy activities in whichchildren chose their own focus, teachers encouraged children to pursuethose hypotheses which they currently found most interesting, and which

were most related to their existing knowledge. Since children's existing

hypotheses participate in the learning process, it is vital that children

recognize the ways in which literacy activities are linked to their existing

knowledge about the content, processes, and purposes of literacy. Third,

22

Literacy Learning 21

the teachers' decision not to present preformed generalizations about

literacy encouraged children to construct their own complex hypotheses

about communicating. In addition the opportunity to pursue these hypotheses

in many different types of literacy events over an extended period of tiMe

allowed children to form a richly interconnected network of knowledge

related to their personal learning themes. And fourth, the curricularenvironment in this classroom encouraged children to construct links

between meanings expressed in different modes of communication by

providing opportunities for observing both artifacts and facetoface

demonstrations of the ways these systems are combined in our society.

Thgether these curricular characteristics supported children in forming

complex intertextual connections as they learned about literacy.

23

Literacy Learning22

REFERENCES

Beaugrande, R. de., & Dressler, W. (1981). /ntroduction to text

linguistics. New York: Longman.

Cicourel, A. (1975). Theory and method in a study ofArgentine fertility.New York: Wiley.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.DeVilliers, P. A., & DeVilliers, J. G. (1979). Early language. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine

Publishing Co.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. Explorations in thedevelopment of language. London: Edward Arnold.

Hardy, B. (1978). Narrative as a primary act of mind. In M. Meek, A.Warlow, & G. Baron (Eds.), The cool web: The pattern ofchildren's readthg, New York: Atheneum.

Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., &Burke, C. L. (1984). Language storiesand literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann EducationalBooks.

Hymes, D. H. (1978). What is ethnography? (Sociolinguistic Working PaperNo. 45). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills:Sage.

Lindfors, J. W. (1980). Children's language and learning. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rosen, H. (1984). Stories andmeanings. London: National Association forthe Teaching of English.

24

Literacy Learning23

Author, (1986). Literacy in the child's world: roung children's explorationsof alternate CO/77I1711/7/C8170/7 systems. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Siegel, (1984). Readihg as sIgnifketion. Unpublished doctoral dissertaiion,

Indiana University, Bloomington.

Spiro, R. J. (1985). knowledge aquisition for application: Cognitive

flexibility and transfer of training in illstructured domains.

Unpublished proposal for funded research. University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.

Spiro, R.J., & Myers, A. (1984). Individual differences and underlying

cognitive processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),

Handbook of reading research (pp . 471-501). New York:Longman.

Spiro, R. J. , Vispoel, W. L. , Schmitz, J. , Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger,A. (in press). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive

flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. C.

Britton (Ed. ), Executive control processes. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

25

Literacy Learning

Phase I

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Figure 1

Data Collection Procedures

Dersiisn 'farthing's's

1 month

4 days/week

field EntryNegotiating my role earesearcher end teacher

Becoming familiar with thesetting

Perticioent/Otser vetionFielo note: efter exitCollection of artifactsInformal Interviews withteachers

3 mont ha

3 daysNeek

Developing hypotheaeaparticipant/Observationfield notes in sellingCollection of artifactsAudio 1.pePhotcora orI nfor m& i ntervirws withteem he, .,1 chloren

Indefin. (ianguletion

2 months

3 days/week

Theoretical Sampling tofurther develop endrefine hypotheses

Part / btervetionField ettingCoilect- ,,i 1t/Ci3

Audio tap,PhotogradhaVideo tapeInfPrma; interviews withchildren end leachersIndefinite triangulation

2 months

2 half days/week

Field Exit

Refine hypotheses

field notes in settingIndefinite Triangulation

24

Literacy Learning 25

Figure 2

Shared !leanings About the

Content and Genre of Literacy Events

WRITING TABLEEel=

SurveysNewspaper

articlesSignsPicture booksWordless books

Song booksWritten musicPersonal lettersMapsSignaturesReminder notesSign-up sheetsSign-in sheets

Content ThemesRainbows

Snowflakes

Spiders

Heartsars

Cookie Mor. 'erWizard of b.,HollidaysVoltranPeople (friends &

Family)DinosaursAnimals

ART TAOLE

fie.=PicturesHats

BraceletsKitesTape/paper

constructionsMachinesTickets

iDntent Themes(Same as for

writing table.)

PIANO

ErmaInstrumental songsVocal/instrumental

songsDanceWritten music

Content ThemesSongs learned at

school.Songs learned at

home.Personal

compositions.

Literacy Learning 26

Figure 3

Gibson: Poo Learning Themes

521DEEL E VFNT

Mon Draws spider webs &spiders for Mary

Tues4/24Wed

2/2.5'Mrs

Mon4/22

Fri

9L10TuesIQLIWedE11.2ThrsELLIFri10/4Mon Spider book;10/7 Spider song _TuesasuaWed10/4Thrs Spider pictures & song;10/ record _Fri10/11Mon10/14Tues10/15Wed

nITTING Loma EmigEVENTS

Learned C) from Hana;iscovers S.

Cuts more VI s.

Spider picture

1

Discovers A s.